I am surprised...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In the First Century, "Jew" is not particularly useful as a term other than when dealing with foreigners. A Jew might be a member of the sect of temple-adherent Jews, alongside such groups as the Herodians, Essenes, and yes, even Christians (and perhaps others). In those terms, Paul had been a Jew.before he became a Christian. It also goes a long way toward explaining how he could "become as a Jew" to Jews.
Alternatively, Jew might refer specifically a member of the tribe of Judah - to which Paul does not belong (As you cited, he was a Benjamite, Romans 11:1). That verse demolishes the claim that Paul had "become a Jew" determines whether Paul was ethnically a Jew. He uses his ethnicity as a Benjamite as concrete evidence that the Jews had not been rejected by God.

The critical factors in determining Paul's ethnicity are "Hebrew" and "descendant of Abraham."

In other words we cannot ever know with absolute certainty the precise and actual background of this individual. All we know [from Paul's authentic writings] is that he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

There was also some tension between the Idumean converts and some Jews. The conquest of Idumea by Hyrcanus I was followed by the Judaization of the inhabitants and from the time of John Hyrcanus I the Idumeans counted as Jews although some Jews found it hard to accept this, as we see with some of the animosity towards Herod the Great.

[Sparko]

I never wrote that same sex relationships did not exist in the ancient world, I noted that the term homosexuality and the modern associations with that term did not exist in the ancient world.

Nor did same-sex behaviours automatically carry the opprobrium in the ancient world that you assign to them today - as I also noted in my reply to yourself and Cow Poke on that subject.

I am sure they were considered normal by many in the ancient near east, which is why such relationships were condemned in the bible.

Your point that the term homosexuality wasn't used back then is a non-sequitur. The bible clearly describes homosexual acts which are condemned as sins. As I quoted to you earlier from Leviticus. Also in Romans we see Paul describing lesbian and male homosexual sex and condemning it.

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Sparko]

As noted to rogue06 :

Paul's claim to be of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is interesting. Benjamin sometimes functioning as a variation of the "Belial/Balaam" terminology. Bela in OT genealogies [reliable or not] is not only an Edomite King but the "son of Be'or" the same parentage ascribed to Balaam. It is therefore not inconceivable that Saul/Paul was a Herodian.


He does not tell us he played baseball or ate hot dogs either. Perhaps he also did both those things but just omitted to actually state it in his writings.

So you do understand why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy then? Or no?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I am sure they were considered normal by many in the ancient near east, which is why such relationships were condemned in the bible.

Your point that the term homosexuality wasn't used back then is a non-sequitur. The bible clearly describes homosexual acts which are condemned as sins. As I quoted to you earlier from Leviticus.

The verses in the Hebrew Bible detailing dietary laws and codes [Deuteronomy 12, 14; Leviticus 7, 11, 17; Exodus 22, 23, 34; Numbers 11] are greater than the two on homosexuality.

Also in Romans we see Paul describing lesbian and male homosexual sex and condemning it.

Paul had issues with passion in any form.

However, another interpretation is that that the language found Romans 1:26-27 is not to stigmatise sexual behaviour of any sort but to condemn the Graeco-Roman world for their general infidelity. Paul implies that there was a time when monotheism was offered to the Romans but it was rejected by them [verses 19-23] and that the reference to homosexuality is nothing more than a mundane analogy to this theological "sin" of rejecting the true Faith. This same argument runs that the various persons being condemened by Paul are manifestly not homosexual but heterosexuals committing homosexual acts.

In other words, those individuals have rejected their natural calling [the true Faith and heterosexuality] and have strayed from the correct path of behaviour, both religious and sexual.

Paul's argument would be entirely undermined if the persons he so roundly condemns were not "naturally" inclined towards heterosexuality in the same way as he believes they should be "naturally" inclined towards monotheism.

Hence, in Paul's view what caused the Romans/Gentiles to sin was not that they lacked what Paul deemed to be proper inclinations [i.e. towards the true Faith of monotheism and heterosexuality] but that they did not follow those proper inclinations. These Romans had the truth but "in unrighteousness" [v.18] because "they did not see fit retain Him in their knowledge" [v.28].`

[tabibito]

In other words we cannot ever know with absolute certainty the precise and actual background of this individual. All we know [from Paul's authentic writings] is that he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

ったく

Had he been addressing a Roman official, or a Roman official talking about him, the word would have been "Jew." Had he been speaking today, the word would have been "Jew." Paul's mixed audience of Jew and Gentile, makes "Jew" inappropriate for the times and places of writing. What we today call "Jew" is usually interchangeable with "Hebrew" - in the first century the terms were not usually interchangeable.

Paul explicitly declared that he was, by today's definitions, an ethnic Jew.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you do understand why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy then? Or no?

I do not know why you are unable to accept the textual fact that when Paul writes about himself he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He uses various other terms and phrases but not that word.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Had he been addressing a Roman official, or a Roman official talking about him, the word would have been "Jew." Had he been speaking today, the word would have been "Jew." Paul's mixed audience of Jew and Gentile, makes "Jew" inappropriate for the times and places of writing. What we today call "Jew" is usually interchangeable with "Hebrew" - in the first century the terms were not usually interchangeable.

Paul explicitly declared that he was, by today's definitions, an ethnic Jew.

Kindly cite your evidence for those remarks.

[Cow Poke]

Question....

So you do understand why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy then? Or no?

Response....

I do not know why you are unable to accept the textual fact that when Paul writes about himself he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He uses various other terms and phrases but not that word.

So, no, she doesn't have a clue.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Question....
Response....
So, no, she doesn't have a clue.

There is no textual reference by Paul using the word Ἰουδαῖος when referring to himself .

Are you totally unable to comprehend that simple textual fact?

[Cow Poke]

There is no textual reference by Paul using the word Ἰουδαῖος when referring to himself .

Are you totally unable to comprehend that simple textual fact?

You are ignorantly proving you have no concept of argumentum ex silentio.

[CivilDiscourse]

There is no textual reference by Paul using the word Ἰουδαῖος when referring to himself .

Are you totally unable to comprehend that simple textual fact?

Beyond the ego trip, what is the actual significance of that fact?

[Sparko]

The verses in the Hebrew Bible detailing dietary laws and codes [Deuteronomy 12, 14; Leviticus 7, 11, 17; Exodus 22, 23, 34; Numbers 11] are greater than the two on homosexuality.

Now your argument is that it wasn't condemned enough times so it doesn't count? That's a new one.

Paul had issues with passion in any form.

He preached against sexual immorality, yes. He had no problem with passion.

However, another interpretation is that that the language found Romans 1:26-27 is not to stigmatise sexual behaviour of any sort but to condemn the Graeco-Roman world for their general infidelity. Paul implies that there was a time when monotheism was offered to the Romans but it was rejected by them [verses 19-23] and that the reference to homosexuality is nothing more than a mundane analogy to this theological "sin" of rejecting the true Faith. This same argument runs that the various persons being condemened by Paul are manifestly not homosexual but heterosexuals committing homosexual acts.

In other words, those individuals have rejected their natural calling [the true Faith and heterosexuality] and have strayed from the correct path of behaviour, both religious and sexual.

Paul's argument would be entirely undermined if the persons he so roundly condemns were not "naturally" inclined towards heterosexuality in the same way as he believes they should be "naturally" inclined towards monotheism.

Hence, in Paul's view what caused the Romans/Gentiles to sin was not that they lacked what Paul deemed to be proper inclinations [i.e. towards the true Faith of monotheism and heterosexuality] but that they did not follow those proper inclinations. These Romans had the truth but "in unrighteousness" [v.18] because "they did not see fit retain Him in their knowledge" [v.28].`

That's quite a stretch. The plain reading of the text shows that Paul was using homosexual lust and acts as an example of how people have rejected God so God gave them over to their lusts and the consequences of those lusts. And no, a person who burns with lusts and has sex with someone of the same sex is a homosexual, not a heterosexual. It's kind of the very definition of "homosexual." But regardless, he was condemning same sex lust and sexual acts, not putting labels on people. To Paul they were reprobates and sinners because of what they DID. So if you want to believe that it was heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts or not, it was the acts themselves that are the sin.

His use of comparing homosexual act to "natural relations" is just him pointing out that homosexual acts were NOT natural, and therefore wrong.

Stop trying to play semantic word games and just read what is written. The OT condemns homosexual acts and the NT does also. It's clear.

[rogue06]

The point is that it is a textual fact that nowhere in his writings does Paul use the term Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.

The funny thing is that you actually, really think that you have a point here.

[Sparko]

I do not know why you are unable to accept the textual fact that when Paul writes about himself he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He uses various other terms and phrases but not that word.

Because it doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew. Did Jesus ever use the exact phrase "I am a Jew?" What about each of his disciples? Do you have a tally?

[Gondwanaland]

Why are you dodging my question? Do you have specific examples, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

They have the same exact proof as you have. Their interpretation of the Bible. I didn't dodge anything, you just don't like the answer.